The Adams Express Co. v. Stettaners

• Decision Date: 30 September 1871
• Citation: 1871 WL 8228,14 Am.Rep. 57,61 Ill. 184
• Parties: THE ADAMS EXPRESS CO.v.LOUIS STETTANERS
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

61 Ill. 184

1871 WL 8228 (Ill.)

14 Am.Rep. 57

THE ADAMS EXPRESS CO.

v.LOUIS STETTANERS

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1871.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county.

Mr. E. G. ASAY and Messrs. HAWES & LAWRENCE, for the appellant.

Messrs. ROSENTHAL & PENCE, for the appellee. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE LAWRENCE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action brought by the appellee against the Adams Express Company to recover the value of certain merchandise shipped from New York to Chicago. The case was submitted to the court upon the following agreement as to the facts, with liberty to both parties to introduce other testimony:

“It is hereby stipulated and agreed that the merchandise in controversy was ordered by plaintiffs, merchants in Chicago, Illinois, of Kutter, Luckemeyer & Co., merchants in the city of New York, in the usual course of trade, and that plaintiffs ordered said New York merchants to ship said merchandise to them at Chicago by the defendant, which is an express company and common carrier. The value of the goods at the time of loss, September 13th, A. D. 1870, was $415.50. The consignors, said New York merchants, shipped said goods by defendant's company, and received from defendant the paper hereto annexed. The goods were not delivered to plaintiffs, but were lost in transit. No statement of the value of the goods was made at time of shipment. The same consignors, a short time before this shipment, shipped a package by same company, of greater value than $50, to other parties (not plaintiffs). Those goods were also lost. A receipt similar to one above was given to consignors at time of shipment. The consignors claimed the full value of goods lost, which was at first refused on the ground that company claimed not to be liable for more than $50, but was finally paid by the company. At the time of payment, which was before the goods in controversy were shipped, the company informed the consignors that in all shipments thereafter, if they wished to hold the company liable for more than $50, they must, at time of shipment, state the real value of package shipped; that plaintiffs did not know, at the time of the shipment to them, of the foregoing information by defendant to consignors. Both parties may introduce other legal testimony on hearing.” The bill of lading which was introduced in connection with the foregoing agreement, contains various stipulations printed underneath the receipt for the goods, one of which is that the company shall not be liable beyond the sum of $50, at which the goods forwarded are to be valued, unless otherwise therein expressed, or unless specially insured, and so specified in the receipt.

The defendant claimed it was liable under this provision only to a judgment of $50. The court held otherwise, and gave judgment for the value of the goods.

This court has several times held that provisions, like the one under consideration, annexed to the receipt in a bill of lading, do not release the carrier from his common law liability unless the assent of the shipper to such limitation is shown, and that such assent is not necessarily to be presumed from the acceptance of the bill of lading. Adams Express Co. v. Haynes, 42 Ill. 90; Western Transportation Co. v. Newhall, 24 Ill. 466; Buckland v. Adams Express Co. 97 Mass. 125. It is urged that the evidence in this case shows what must be considered as an assent. It is not necessary to discuss that question as the judgment must be affirmed upon another ground.

Even if it should be conceded that the shipper, in this case, must be...